Conscience and WAR
Clash of certainties
In 1616, the Catholic Church was absolutely certain the words of the Holy Bible were true concerning the planet Earth and its place in the Universe; especially in regards to this scripture "...the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." 1 Chron 16:30.
Galileo, an astronomer, offered a contradictory view; the world turns! He had built a telescope proving it. Priests refused to look through such a devilish device. The word of god could not possibly be wrong. It never occurred to them it was their own interpretation that could be wrong.
A clash between Science vs Religion - or - a war of hubris vs nemesis?
In ancient times, pride in one’s knowledge of any god was termed “hubris”. To be wrong
In one’s belief resulted in Nemesis which was punishment by that god.
The Holy Office issued a condemnation of Galileo’s theory. It declared that the mere idea, the Sun stood still and the Earth moved, was false and Galileo was forbidden to hold it in his mind nor to attempt to defend it. The authority of the Church itself should be enough for any honest Christian, they declared. Naturally, as a scientist, Galileo sought to defend his conjecture! An INQUISITION was arranged.
He was called to appear before Inquisitors. (A judicial committee of clerics)
The custom of the legal system in Europe at that time, under Catholic authority, was to display instruments of torture while the questioning was being conducted!
After weighing the pros and cons of scientific certainty vs dead certainty of torture, Galileo recanted and was placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life.
Even so, the Catholic Church today now acknowledges that Galileo’s condemnation was wrong.
The Vatican has even issued two stamps of Galileo as an expression of regret for his mistreatment. (Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum August 10, 2004)
Non-violent certainty
As a movement dedicated to non-violence, Buddhism is second to none.
(c.563 - 483 BC) Buddha renounced war while seeking harmony with all living things.
This beautiful philosophy, it would seem, would prevent practicing Buddhists from shedding blood in anger under any and all circumstances. However, history reveals it was not so.
Buddhist monks actually bore arms and fought in the Korean defence against Japanese invasions of the late 16th century. While military service is not prohibited in Buddhist texts, a soldier's life is considered problematic because of the likelihood of dying in battle, psyched up for killing and fixated on violence.
Among ancient Greeks, philosophers such as the Stoics praised pacifism for individual character development but stopped short of practicing it outright when besieged by enemies!
The Roman idea of Pax Romana (Roman Peace) was a political state of civilized balance between surrounding countries. Constant war with barbarians tested the fragility and nature of peaceful civilization. Peace was only achieved by insuperable armies on straight flat roads at a rapid forced march! The Roman empire lasted almost 2,000 years
The ethical Christ, Jesus, and his followers created tensions between the authority of Rome and his future followers whose tender mercies made it impossible to agree to serve in the military or political arenas. “Turn the other cheek” was of little use to Roman authority.
Moreover, Christians were declared “atheists”. Why? Because they disbelieved in the hundreds of deities daily worshipped by all far-flung believers in the empire. A single god seemed presumptuous and disrespectful in such an ethos of polytheism. Christians were viewed with condescension as a result of what appeared to be uncompromising irreverence.
Pagan Constantine in the 4th century, integrated Christians into civil society through his Edict of Milan thus blurring any clear distinction between God and the State. To succeed Emperor Constantine must have unity among the population.
Internal discord undermined peace.
Legalizing Christianity might well calm the outlaw coalescing Christians into both the military and political office. Or so he thought.
Eusebius, the official historian of the early Church, reveals the surprising story of infighting among competing opinions and interpretations in the empire. For one thing, Christians were refusing to be soldiers. Clever emperor that he was, Constantine called upon a brilliant philosopher and scholar named Augustine to hammer out an ironclad set of reasons to persuade Christians to see things from a practical and utilitarian POV as well as mollifying their scruples about bloodshed.
Augustine carefully crafted a logical Just War Theory.
Both scripture and government and the Church confirmed to Christianity that service to the secular was approved by God himself! This echoed Romans 13: 1,2.
Within two hundred years, after the so-called Fall of Rome in 476 c.e. as a world power, the Catholic Church had formed and grown in power and influence as it promoted its own ascendance over all earthly rulers. It was reasoned that a natural chain of leadership existed with the heaven-approved authority to guide Christian Conscience.
Whatever the Church asserted was true (according to their interpretation) became automatically approved by heaven!
In time, the Church was itself a de facto governing body authority.
This Governing Body demanded loyalty by representing itself as the only
true mouthpiece of God.
Instead of thousands of disagreements, and individual opinions clashing constantly, this Universal Church (Catholic means Universal) brought unity without individuality. The absolute reliance on this governing body removed the necessity of having a conscience or a personal opinion.
This corrupted the Church with hubris. How? It believed it actually had the power and authority to speak FOR God Almighty.
How was hubris punished? NEMESIS.
Martin Luther, an Apostate monk, challenged the magisterium of the Pope; engaging in public and private debate about the meaning of scripture. He pointed to corruption and overbearing egotism in the operation and policies of Catholic authority.
Eventually, those willing to open their eyes and acknowledge church authority wrongdoing quit the Church. Luther split the nay-sayers into Protestant vs.Catholic binary Christianities leading to the Thirty Years' War. Hubris met Nemesis on the battlefield in the ‘civilized’ world. What had become of Jesus’ “turn the other cheek?”
Pacifism seemed to have no firm ground on which to stand.
Christians fought other Christians, murder being merely a noble act ridding the land of “false” interpretations.
The very faith itself was imploding by a contest for who could rightfully claim to interpret truth with absolute moral certainty.
Augustine’s Just War seemed to apply to Christians fighting against “false religion” as well.
(MAGISTERIUM ARISES (opposed by CONSCIENCE)
The Catholic Church claimed a magisterium of tradition and Apostolic succession with infallibility on matters of faith and morals. Jesus gave Peter the “keys of the kingdom” and Peter was the first Church Father, Papa, or Pope.
The question was hurled to dissenting protestors:
What possible standing do protesting Protestants have to offer?
Protestants preferred Martin Luther’s notion of sola scriptura: that a devout believer only needed the Bible alone as authority!
Every man for himself was to be aided or directed by prayer through Holy Spirit.
Nice theory but was it just another opinion and interpretation gone awry?
The tension between Church and State exploded.
Who was in charge? Did Jesus’ sacrifice mean men were free of “leaders;” each given Christian Freedom to allow the Spirit to lead their interpretation of pure worship?
Didn’t chaos always result?
Theocracy of Catholic Church+State had fractured into personal conscience+God’s directing spirit vs secular authority. The kings turned on the authority of Church.
Henry VIII simply created out of thin air a more convenient church: ANGLICAN.
Where did this civil war among Christians leave the conscience of Christianity?
What about the inevitability of war? What was the individual Christian to do
if faced with a kill-or-be-killed decision without a Pope making it sound necessary to fight?
NOTE; The modern concept of a personal Christian conscience was only necessary for Protestants. The Catholic Governing Body of prelates, Bishops, Priests declared true doctrine with no questioning conscience necessary for rank and file parishoners.
The Catholic Church’s magisterium left nothing for its members to work out for themselves as inward questioning.
The unintended consequence of Protestant sola scriptura was to lead apostate Protestants willy-nilly into sect after sect of so-called true opinions; each set forth as the certain TRUTH.
Faith blurred.
Interpretation now ruled.
The next five hundred years were a viral outpouring of human imagination!
Today, over forty thousand “Christian” denominations abound.
Historical recap
1. At the time of Judaism as a tribe and then as a Nation, the state was the only authority as a Theocratic entity. To obey the state was to obey God. The army was Jehovah’s army. The victory was attributed to the approval of Jehovah.
Defeat redounded to the human failings of apostasy.
2. Alexander the Great conquered the known world (4th century b.c.e.) militarily and his generals became de facto rulers of previously Sovereign states. The Nation of Israel was at the mercy of the Greek Seleucid rulers whims of authority. The Jews fought back militarily to maintain ritual purity with brief periods of victory but eventually the yoke of Roman rule prevailed.
3. When Messiah Jesus arrived, Rome had swallowed up Palestine as a protectorate with Herod installed as a puppet ruler. A tenuous peace was only possible if the Jews caused no problems for Rome. Religious ritual and secular authority maintained a truce of dubious balance. At the point Jesus was accused of challenging Caesar as King of the Jews, Rome stepped in and executed him for Lèse-majesté. Treasonous insubordination.
4. Christianity functioned as a sect of Messianic Judaism until Rome destroyed ritual forgiveness by Jehovah throughh priests in Jerusalem. Jews fled for their lives. This allowed Gentiles the open field to steer Christian definitions. Greek philosophy colored Christianity with Plato’s teachings blended into Jesus’ words. Historians call this process: accretion.
5. Paganized Christianity flourished by replacing Messianic Judaism, as a rival, and won by the sheer number of converts and majority opinion.
6. Between 66 C.E. and 313 C.E. there were many competing orthodoxies fighting an often bloody doctrinal battle for pre-eminence within Christianity while a simultaneous battle with Roman secular demands erupted as persecution.
Eusebius, the first Christian historian, describes the chaos of in-fighting. Whatever this new Christianity was - it changed from group to group without unity. Even the original leadership by Apostles of Jesus butted heads with Paul who went a different path under a spirit-directed path they seemed unaware of. He was forced to oppose Peter face to face at one point.
7. In that almost 300-year interim period, called Early Christianity, pacifism and conscience prevailed in clashes between the secular Gentile authority and the hybrid Judeo-Pagan faith of Jesus' followers. How ironic.
Early Church fathers’ view of military
Christianity today is oftn regarded as a loose confederation of people who are followers of Jesus. Each denomination follows the Jesus they themselves perceive, define, interpret and believe to be the only true one. From the 1st century to the early 4th-century solidarity and uniformity of mind about military service emerged
:
JUSTIN MARTYR (150 A.D.) "We, who had been filled with war and mutual slaughter and every wickedness, have each one-all the world over-changed the instruments of war, the swords into plows and the spears into farming implements, and we cultivate piety, righteousness, love for men, faith, (and) the hope which is from Father Himself through the Crucified One."
ORIGENES (240 A.D.)
"To those who ask us whence we have come or whom we have (for) a leader, we say that we have come in accordance with the counsels of Jesus to cut down our warlike and arrogant swords of argument into plowshares, and we convert into sickles the spears we formerly used in fighting. For we no longer take ‘sword against a nation,’ nor do we learn any more to make war, having become sons of peace for the sake of Jesus, who is our leader, instead of (following) the ancestral (customs)."
LACTANTIUS (300 A.D.)
"For, in the first place, the connection of human society is taken away; for justice cannot bear the cutting asunder of the human race, and wherever arms glitter, she must be put to flight and banished...For how can he be just, who injures, hates, despoils, kills? And those who strive to be of advantage to their country (in this way) do all these things."
Cadoux: Early Church and the World, p. 189-190, 275-276
"Then too, the conscientious refusal of the Christians to pay divine honors to the emperor and his statue, and to take part in any idolatrous ceremonies at public festivities, their aversion to the imperial military service, their disregard for politics and depreciation of all civil and temporal affairs as compared with the spiritual and eternal interests of man, their close brotherly union and frequent meetings, drew upon them the suspicion of hostility to the Caesars and he Roman people, and the unpardonable crime of conspiracy against the state."
At this point, in the history of Christian thought, a paradigm shift was about to occur. For 3 centuries the return of Jesus was expected “shortly”. The phrase, “Come quickly, Lord Jesus” sums it up succinctly. Even the dullest observer was bound to notice that the passing of 300 years was a distortion of a reasonable definition of “shortly”. Pragmatic men cannot stand around waiting to be rescued forever! Alternate new expectations replaced old ones.
LEGACY of CONSTANTINE
Christianity was made legal by the soldier Constantine, who was a worshipper of the “sun” of God.
A military victory secured for Christians what 300 years of prayer had sought.
Persecution was outlawed by the state.
FINALLY - but unity? Agreement?
Early Christians accepted that they had been blessed with a new beginning under a peaceful regime spent bending over backward to accommodate them. Perhaps, this intervention into history was God’s way of using the state for the establishment of His son’s kingdom on Earth, it was suggested and eventually agreed.
Change of attitude
"It is generally thought that with the accession of Constantine to power, the Church as a whole definitely gave up her anti-military leanings, abandoned all her scruples, finally adopted the imperial point of view, and treated the ethical problem involved as a closed question. Allowing for a little exaggeration, this is broadly speaking true. ” Cadoux: The Early Church and the World, pp. 588-589
When the Church is the same as the State, what possible clash can a man of conscience suffer? Augustine’s Just War Theory provided the necessary foundation for avoiding conflicts in conscience.
What exactly is a Just War?
Augustine asked Christian readers to consider one man hitting his child and another man caressing his child. The first man appears to be brutish and evil, and yet he might be a father lovingly disciplining his son! The second man appears to be a good and affectionate person, but in fact, may well be a child molester!
Augustine reasons, "We find a man by love made to appear fierce, and the other man by evil made to appear winningly gentle."
This opens the door for Christians to perform outward acts that might appear to be forbidden by Scripture and yet by those acts do a greater good.
Because God judges the soul, the ultimate question is not "what the man does … but with what intention in his mind and his will he does it.
" The appropriate motive in all cases, (Augustine declares), is love. What is done from the love of God must be good. A Christian soldier fights, kills, and dies out of…love!
This Doctrine was absorbed into the Church and approved as the proper Christian rationale.
In his book, The City of God, Augustine elucidates his thesis.
Augustine insists there is no "private right" to kill.
One can kill only under the authority of God, as communicated by direct or implicit command from God, or by a legitimate ruler who carries out God's intent to restrain evil on earth. Augustine further suggests that one who obeys such a command "does not himself do the killing." He acts only as an instrument of the one who commands.
(As the Nazi war criminals would say at Nuremberg: “We were only following orders.”
Augustine concludes, "The commandment forbidding killing was not broken by those who have waged wars under the authorization of God, or those who have imposed the death penalty on criminals when representing the authority of the state, the most just and most reasonable source of power."
When there is no command by God, war may be waged only by those with legitimate authority, and only for a just cause. The Catholic governing body authority spoke and that was that! Conscience played no part in a church member's obedience.
With the advent of Protestantism, a foundational error cracked open the consciences of non-Catholic Christian worshippers.
Protestants had to reason, “If the Catholic Church has no actual authority to declare Just War—on what basis could the Protestants now engage in military action?
Applying Martin Luther’s principle of sola scriptura (the Bible alone), Protestants fell into an ad hoc every-man-for-himself, a case-by-case crisis of conscience.
“The wars of Israel were the only 'holy wars' in history... there can be no more wars of faith. The only way to overcome our enemy is by loving him.”
―Dietrich Bonhoeffer-The Cost of Discipleship―
“Is it morally acceptable to murder one hundred innocent people in the process of catching a serial killer who has murdered ten people? If you think World War II was justified, your answer should be yes.”
―Michel Templet―
All war must be just the killing of strangers against whom you feel no personal animosity; strangers whom, in other circumstances, you would help if you found them in trouble, and who would help you if you needed it.
― "The Private History of the Campaign That Failed" Mark Twain―
Modern Pacifism
Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth Rock in the year of our Lord 1620.
Within the short space of 36 years they were joined by Mennonites, Amish and Hutterites. By 1719 the smaller sects were swarming onto the new continent searching for room to practice unconventional faiths. Among these were Dunkers, Shakers, Christadelphians and Rogerenes.
Held in common by these otherwise disparate groups was the assertive audacity to self-identify as pacifist in time of war. This included outright refusal to participate in the defense of hearth and home in Indian uprisings or the Revolutionary war. To non-members, these pacifist groups were an untenable annoyance.
Logical practicality demonstrates the problem with this Bible-based scruple was simply that it was suicidal in practice should everybody suddenly decide to turn the other cheek during a battle. It would only be possible if at least a majority of Christians took up arms against common foe while the pacifists stood idly by praying!
Argument against
"The only real objection which can be argued against the revival of the early Christian attitude is that Christianity has accepted the State, and that this carried with it the necessity for coercive discipline within and the waging of war without; in which disagreeable duties Christians must as citizens take their part. To refuse this will expose civilization to disaster..."The truth is that the way of war, if persisted in, is going to destroy civilization anyhow, and the continual demand for war service will, sooner or later, bring modern State anarchy ..It is a subject that will not cease to vex the Church until we have decided either to make as unequivocal a condemnation of war as we have of slavery, or to abandon altogether any profession of whole-hearted allegiance to the Christian faith."
REV. W.E. ORCHARD : Cadoux Early Christian Attitude to War, Foreword, p. ix-x
Quakers refused the oath of allegiance to the King and sought to create their own theocracy in Pennsylvania.
Image As if Quakers weren't annoying already, they further staunchly dug in and refused to pay taxes! They reasoned that tax money was supporting the war effort. (Revolutionary War (1775-1783).
Unsurprisingly, Revolutionary authority imprisoned *conscientious objectors and seized over one hundred thousand pounds of their personal goods and property as penalty! These confiscations became commonplace. Counter balancing this sectarian heretical stance was the fact pious believers were also hard-working,honest to a fault and dependable good neighbors who fulfilled all other civic duties.
Mennonites believed that God did not condone killing or the use of force for any reason and were therefore unwilling to fight for their lives. They paid especially high taxes for military exemption. Among them were the Amish as an ethnic religious offshoot.
Among German sects were non-conformists both non-political and less educated. Mennonites and Dunkards, (named for their practice of triple dipping when baptising) were mostly poor farmers often called upon to supply the army with wagons and horses. After all, what was the alternative but official confiscation? German religious groups complied with confiscation and contributed food, timber, blankets and clothing to keep the troops warm in winter, although they would never agree to participate in any battle.
Son: Paw, what does confiscate mean?
Dad: It means to steal under authority of the Army
_______________________________________________________________________
POINT OF ORDER
(*Note: In pre-modern instances, use of the term conscientious objector is an anachronism. This is for the simple reason it was first coined in the nineteenth century and first found in the Oxford English Dictionary in 1899.
In Freedom from War: Nonsectarian Pacifism, 1814-1914, author Peter Brock traced the term "conscientious objection" to military service or war to the year 1846, when it was mentioned several times by pacifists, anti militarism and political radicals in their campaign against compulsory militia service and recruitment for the British Army.)
(Conscience and Conscientious Objections, Anders Schinkel Amsterdam University Press, Jan 1, 2007 )
The first national effort at conscripting young men for war came in March 1863 after two years of the Civil War. Congress made it legal for any conscript to find a substitute combatant or pay a fine of $300 to commute his obligation. ($300 in 1863 dollars would be worth: $5,555.56)
The Northern states under Federal law amended previous provisions so as to recognize only those conscientious objectors who were members of religious denominations whose rules and articles of faith prohibited armed service. This was in order to discourage the ad hoc profession of religious pacifism.
In the Confederacy, the draft law of 1862 exempted Quakers, Mennonites, Brethren, and Nazarenes, with the understanding that they would either hire a substitute or pay $500. ($500 in 1862 dollars would be worth: $11,627.91)
These conditions were clearly unsatisfactory and many C.O.s could either not meet the monetary demand or would refuse to hire someone who might kill in their stead. The conscientious objector often found himself moved to camps in states where no one knew of him or his good reputation, in the hands of military officers who had little or no sympathy for his scruples. For the first time, there are records of C.O.s who were tortured, hanged by their thumbs, or pierced by bayonets for refusing to carry a musket; many others were imprisoned. Some C.O.s joined the army as cooks and/or would shoot over the heads of the enemy rather than kill them. Others, such as Mennonites in Virginia, hid out in the hills until the war was over.
(Source: Conscience in America: A Documentary History of Conscientious Objection in America, 1757-1967 ed. by Lillian Schlissel (E.P. Dutton & Co., Inc., NY, 1968), p. 15-26)
Conscientious Objectors in World War I found themselves shipped off to army camps. It was up to them to convince unsympathetic officers and other officials of their sincerity.
Occasionally, the C.O.s were removed to prisons instead of camps. One unofficial source states that 3,989 men declared themselves to be conscientious objectors when they had reached the camps: of these, 450 were court-martialed and sent to prison; 940 remained in camps until the Armistice was fully enacted. The absolutist C.O.s who refused to drill or do any noncombatant service received court-martial and sentences of many years in federal prison at Alcatraz Island or Ft. Leavenworth. Within U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, many suffered persecution, manacling, and solitary confinement. Most C.O.s who had been imprisoned received release orders by May 1919.
(Source: The Politics of Conscience: The Historic Peace Churches and America at War, 1917-1955 by Albert N. Keim and Grant M. Stoltzfus (Herald Press, Scottdale, PA, 1988), p. 19-26, 144-146)
Concerned citizens inside and outside of government braced themselves for a radical re-think for workable policies handling religious persons of conscience; this was called one-W in July of 1952. Provisions now offered Civilian Public Service as an alternative to combat with farming, welfare work, construction and low-level health facility employment.
Mennonites and Brethren were agreeable with the programs. Many of the C.O.s went on to careers in education and social service because of this introduction to systemic ways of helping others.
Of the nearly 10,000 one-W men from 1952-1955, only about 25 men left their jobs without authorization; 20 were Jehovah's Witnesses.
Vietnam War 1959 -- April 30, 1975,
The Vietnam War produced draft resisters working within organized networks. Rejection of conscription stemmed from disagreement with the United States' foreign policy in Indochina. Political activists pointed to perceived injustice against African Americans, the poor and uneducated.
Civil rights groups, and women's organizations soon jumped in and staged massive anti-war rallies in which hundreds of young men burned their draft cards. GI resister groups spread dissent inside the armed forces as well as targeting those not yet in the military.
For the first time in 1965, the Supreme Court ruled that C.O.s need not believe in a Supreme Being! This was expanded in 1970 to include individuals objecting to military service on ethical grounds, if such convictions "are deeply felt."
A total of 170,000 men received C.O. deferments; as many as 300,000 other applicants were denied deferment. Nearly 600,000 illegally evaded the draft; about 200,000 were formally accused of draft offences. Between 30,000 and 50,000 fled to Canada; another 20,000 fled to other countries or lived underground in America.
Conscription stopped three years before U.S. involvement in Vietnam did (Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird announced on January 27, 1973 that the draft was to end, as of that date, in favor of voluntary enlistment). President Nixon opined ending the draft would end the massive opposition to that war, but in this he erred. A pretentious and hollow victory was finally declared and troops abandoned the battle.
(Source:
The Strength Not to Fight: An Oral History of Conscientious Objectors of the Vietnam War by James W. Tollefson (Little, Brown & Company, Boston, MA, 1993), p. 6-7)
The basis of legal problems for conscientious objection had already been removed by the offer of alternate civilian work. Yet, outside the mainstream were "fringe" groups such as Jehovah’s Witnesses who deliberately snubbed peaceful hospital service. Why? If the purpose of pacifism was achieved by such work what possible complaint could a Christian have?
Jehovah’s Witnesses as non-combatants
SUBJECTION TO THE “SUPERIOR AUTHORITIES” (Romans 13.1)
The early Bible Students (forerunners of the later Jehovah’s Witnesses) asserted the belief that the “higher powers,” or “superior authorities,” were the governmental rulers of this world. All major Christian denominations agreed. By divine permission, secular authority is the temporal master or Caesar.
However, a Christian could not serve two masters, he must obey God as ruler rather than men.
On the basis of that understanding Bible Students concluded that if a Christian were drafted in time of war he would have to serve in the army, don a uniform and go off to battle. But it was morally advisable that, when it came to actually kill a fellow man, the Christian soldier could shoot in the air instead!
(1886 Higher Powers: In Volume, I of Studies in the Scriptures released by Russell the "Higher Powers" of Romans 13 are identified as human government (p. 266).
"If, therefore, we were drafted, and if the government refused to accept our conscientious scruples against warfare (as they have heretofore done with 'Friends,' called Quakers); we should request to be assigned to the hospital service or to the Commissary department or to some other non-combatant place of usefulness, and such requests would no doubt be granted. If not, and we ever got into battle, we might help to terrify the enemy, but need not shoot anybody" (Zion's Watch Tower, 1 July 1898, p. 204).
"Obedience to the laws of the land might at some time oblige us to bear arms, and in such event, it would be our duty to go into the army, if unable in any legal and proper manner to obtain an exemption, but it would not be our duty to volunteer. We are soldiers in another army, which battles not with carnal weapons, and whose contests are from an entirely different standpoint and in an entirely different spirit. There could be nothing against our consciences in going into the army. Wherever we would go we could take the Lord with us, the Captain of our salvation, and wherever we would go we could find opportunities to serve him and his cause. If it came to the point of battling we above all would be obliged to draw the line when commanded to fire, and we could not, in harmony with the divine program, fire upon a fellow creature with the intention of taking his life. If we fired we should be obliged to fire either into the air or into the ground...The governor of the state has the right, under the laws, to call for and to conscript, if necessary, soldiers for the defense of the state and of the nation; and if such requisition is enforced upon us we must render our dues and take our share in the trials and difficulties of the service, whatever they may be" (Zion's Watch Tower, 15 April 1903, p. 120)
NOTE:
Russell did change his mind in 1915 about accepting induction into military service but, did he object to alternative service?....indeed not, he is quite clear that it is acceptable and honorable, and that is what the conscripts in 1916 ended up accepting.
Alternate or substitute service is what his successor, J.F. Rutherford began to reject in 1917 which led to a world of trouble with the US government in 1918.
The traditional Christian church had adopted, for the most part, the unique view of Augustine that the state was ordained by heaven, and a Just War Theory was applied when the state called for action.
What set I.B.S.A. (International Bible Students Association) conscientious objector military policy at odds with other denominations was a peculiar and unnecessary argument that began with name-calling and treason against the Federal Laws on Espionage!
The Watchtower Society went full-tilt confrontational with a combination of anti-patriotic writings, letters to soldiers, distribution of anti-war propaganda to military facilities, and a bad attitude toward government, politics, commerce, and fellow Christians of other faiths put the world on notice, this religious leader was spoiling for a fight! Rutherford seemed to want to destroy the central idea behind Romans 13.1 that Christians were to be subject to secular rulers because God had ordained them in their positions of authority; sometimes called the ‘divine right of kings.’
Next, he sought to pick a fight on all fronts at once by going after the pastors and priests in every local church, congregation, and synagogue!
TREASON or truth?
"As a class, according to the scriptures, the clergymen are the most reprehensible men on earth for the Great War that is now afflicting mankind. For 1,500 years they have taught the people the satanic doctrine of the divine right of kings to rule. They have mixed politics and religion, church and state; have proved disloyal to their God-given privilege of proclaiming the message of Messiah's kingdom, and have given themselves over to encouraging the rulers to believe that the king reigns by divine right, and therefore whatsoever he does is right." Ambitious kings of Europe armed for war, because they desired to grab the territory of the other peoples; and the clergy patted them on the back and said: 'Go to it, you can do no wrong; whatsoever you do is all right.'"
General Bell of Long Island visited Rutherford to get his followers to submit to military service. Rutherford refused to do so. He wrote letters of advice to Bible students in the camps advising them not to don a uniform nor do anything even closely connected to the military. These letters were intercepted by the censors. All these factors added up to considerable opposition to the Bible students by the authorities.
(Tony Wills, in A People For His Name (pg 100))
Instead of maintaining “Neutrality”, President J.F. Rurtherford gave one on one
Advice against service from his assumed position of authority speaking as Jehovah’s mouthpiece.
AFTER:
BEFORE:
BrotherRutherford suddenly changed the interpretation of Romans 13: 1,2. In 1962, Rutherford’s successor, Nathan Knorr quietly changed it back to what it had always been before. The impact on rank and file members of Jehovah’s Witnesses during that 1929 to 1963 “NEW LIGHT” interpretation can only be said to be a time when obedience to Rutherford superceded obedience to conscience although Brother Rutherford claimed his authority in the name of Jehovah.
One thing for certain, however, ignoring Federal laws against alcohol could be justified during Prohibition on the grounds Rutherford spoke below:
(“God never authorized a prohibition or any other sumptuary law to control the consciences or actions of others.” w29 p.121)
POST WWII Jehovah’s Witness Young Men: What is Conscience?
______In the 1960s men of draft age were called upon to either serve in the Military
(during the Vietnam War) or to comply with the Alternate Service option: serving in a hospital or community in need.
Non-Jehovah’s Witnesses were faced with only one refusal: Military Service.
JW boys and young men were instructed (in private) to refuse the Alternate civilian service as well.
The Superior Authorities had made this exemption for people of conscience.
The law was clear on this.
If JWs worked in a hospital community they would be free to go about the Witnessing ministry - if JW’s double-refused: they would languish in prison.
Governing Body leaders applied their authority and influence to “not compromise.”
Was the Superior Authority trying to stop JW’s from preaching? No.
Was the Superior Authority trying to punish JW’s for our beliefs? No.
______________
DUTY to Jehovah vs duty to Superior Authority
JW Brothers were admonished to omit public mention of “any influence” at all by others.
(“Others” means our overseers and organization leaders acting in private).
Young JW boys subject to induction were told to say to the authorities that it was our personal conscience at work without undue influence or pressure to act against our own best interests.
WAS IT CONSCIENCE or influence by leaders steering
toward double refusal of legal alternatives to Military service?
This is where the Seagoville Prison story really begins
(I was a 20-year-old JW when I was sentenced to 6 years in Federal prison. Since I was under the age of 21, the District Judge (Leo Brewster) did so under the Youth Corrections Act.
I was privately advised by my congregation's leaders (called Overseer at the time). I was told I must refuse not only induction - but Alternate Service as well. Most importantly - I could not say to any Federal Authority that I had been coaxed, influenced, or advised by my religious authorities to make a choice of refusal.
Why? That's what landed Judge Rutherford and his Board of Directors in prison.
It was okay for me to go to prison - but um ...well - you get it, right?) I now see this as Undue Influence.
Back then? I was (like the Nazi's at Nuremberg "only following orders".)
The U.S. Government saw us as one group within a larger group of men refusing to comply with the law - not for political protest but for reasons of deeply-held beliefs.
(Jehovah’s Witnesses, Hutterites, Mennonites, 7th Day Adventists, etc.)
The following is an excerpt from a study analysis conducted by our government.
These documents are found online in the President Gerald Ford Library of records.
I discovered this recently and was quite fascinated in terms of our JW community and the other C.O.s in their community.
To the analysts, we were a case study of human behavior.
An odd group of ages, races, psychological types, and special motivations.
TAKE A LOOK BELOW.
Fascinating?
To see ourselves as others saw us is an amazing gift.
Let us continue…
“He did indicate that he would be willing to perform similar services under a court order of probation.”
How is this not the exact definition of “compromise”?
Any Brother who performs alternate Civilian service under the Law by his own conscience in view of Romans 13: 1,2 would violate Governing Body instructions.
Any Brother who followed Governing Body instructions would- in the eyes of the Law- would be seen as disrespecting the authority of Caesar by dictating his own terms.
If a Policeman wants to give you a ticket for speeding but you insist he let you off without a ticket and only THEN you’ll comply with the speed limit - is this not disrespect and a high-handed sense of entitlement? Asking for or demanding “special treatment” would place JWs in an Elite category outside the law. Historically Christians have not demanded such privileges.
In a sense - by refusing Alternate Service we Brothers shot ourselves in the collective foot. Rather than being free to go door-to-door or conduct Bible studies in a regular community as well as rendering Samaritan-like aid to injured or sick persons in a hospital setting (as Alternate Service provides) - most of us placed ourselves in a strait-jacket of idle time constraints and the pressure and anxiety on our families was considerable.
(All the above is excerpted from Gerald Ford Presidential Library and Museum:) https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/document/0193/18558946.pdf
________
What follows is :
A Transcript from National Public Radio:
(4,500 Jehovah’s Witnesses during the Vietnam War. ¾ of 6,000)
WHAT ABOUT: Alternate HOSPITAL WORK?
MILITARY SERVICE was off the table as soon as we announced we are Conscientious Objectors.
Federal law allowed that exemption.
The non-military alternative was now the only issue needing our cooperation.
Further refusal of the alternative is what landed Jehovah’s Witnesses in prison and it
Was a matter of obedience to our Governing Body rather than conscience.
"If you are a young person, you also need to face the fact that you will never grow old in this present system of things. Why not? Because all the evidence in fulfillment of Bible prophecy indicates that this corrupt system is due to end in a few years. Of the generation that observed the beginning of the "last days" in 1914, Jesus foretold: "This generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur."-Matt. 24:34. Therefore, as a young person, you will never fulfill any career that this system offers. If you are in high school and thinking about a college education, it means at least four, perhaps even six or eight more years to graduate into a specialized career. But where will this system of things be by that time? It will be well on the way toward its finish, if not actually gone!"
Awake! 1969 May 22 p.15
Why wouldn’t we obey our Governing Body? They represented themselves as chosen by Jehovah and Jesus
To speak on their behalf as modern-day ‘prophets’.
MORAL of the STORY of the HISTORY of CONSCIENCE for JW’s TODAY
Let your conscience be your guide.
A Bible-trained conscience… as interpreted by whatever the current LIGHT happens to be.
Otherwise, we end up like the Early Christians, in utter chaos fighting against all the other Christians; seeing them as false and enemies of God.
Oh, Wait! That's already happened!
